I know this has been reported but I'm not so sure how true it is. Certainly David Noble in his 5AA interview was under the impression that he could go to Sydney if they delisted him. He could be mistaken of course. I know a player can become a de-listed free agent even if he refused to sign if they have the club's blessing, I think Josh Toy was in this situation.
-
-
If you are seeing this notice, posts and uploads you make now may be lost when we cut over to the upgraded system. This should only last a few hours.
Post feedback, issues, errors and omissions here. Read the OP first, please.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING
- Thread starter doodle48
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
I guess with the level of transparency the AFL has, it wouldn't surprise me if even the clubs didn't know what the case was. That diagram the AFL released a while ago indicated that delisted players who had been offered a contract didn't count though.
That's the key, the Crows were hardly going to voluntarily delist him so he walks to Sydney.
- Oct 6, 2012
- 14,261
- 29,459
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Sorry, but you have to include what we didn't get through the Sydney trade in what we've lost, particularly given the afl blocked us from trading him. And I sure hope our lawyers argue this point.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Why would he threaten legal action for the crows to de-list him though? If he can't become a free agent anyway he should be putting his efforts into the AFL allowing him to nominate for the draft.
pot, kettle?
"Thank you, sir, may I have another?"
Flynn White
Debutant
- Oct 25, 2012
- 146
- 113
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Melbourne Heart
I blame Neil craig for the investment in Tippett, for christs sake Neil Craig played Walker for 1 game, then dropped him to the SANFL for 4 or 5, bloody wanka! I don't cry over losing Tippett, I would ball my eyes out if we lost Walker!
I thouht he was threatening legal action against us if he were to be deregistered. I think he is considering launching legal action against the AFL to make him a delisted free agent.
This is the diagram I was referring to, and is about the only thing I've seen from the AFL that mentions delisted free agents.
Can't agree with this WD. Quality AFL players nominate a single club and get traded for fair/reasonable compensation every year. Mitch Clarke, Shaun Burgoyne, Judd etc. Jesus, Collingwood received more for both Wellingham and Dawes than Sydney had on the table for Tippett. Even Gunston who you've attempted to use as an example netted us pick 24 plus upgrades on 2 later picks. Yes we probably all wanted a first rounder in the 12-20 range, but what we ended up with is way closer to the mark than what Sydney offered for Tippett. Clubs are generally keen to work an equitable deal for players they want to trade in, because they know the roles might be reversed next time.I pretty much agree with this.
I reckon the minute Tippett nominated Sydney we were screwed, much like when Gunston nominated Hawthorn. You really have zero leverage once an out of contract player nominates a single club. The threat of the PSD really doesn't seem to be a deterrent these days. Pretty sure there is an understanding between clubs to let players get to their nominated club in the PSD.
and yes, I have a headache.
Which begs the question why a club with a reputation as being very fair and reasonable traders, in Sydney, suddenly became a bunch of total hard-arses on this deal. Now either they were privy to the "agreement" and were attempting to use it as leverage. Or they're just hopelessly ill equipped to effect a trade of this magnitude, and should stick to the chump change dealings for other clubs' detritus, to which they're accustomed.
Not much doubt about that TR, I would have thought. Remember the statement from Blucher?
Yep I think that too boffo. That was really directed at the folks who in an attempt to mitigate the club's **** up, are suggesting that we wouldn't have got much better out of Sydney even if the agreement never existed. Maybe Sydney never would have gone after Tippett if it hadn't. But if they did, I'm absolutely sure they would have put more on the table than 23, or 23 + White (which to me was a downgrade on 23 alone, as we would have been taking on an above average salary, for a below average player, who would just be competing against more promising players we have on our list already).
Thread is pointless... Culture... Us AFC fans care 2 much... 
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...rigg-to-keep-job/story-e6freck3-1226523425159
I know, I know...media speculation has covered almost every possible outcome at some stage or other. I find I'm now looking at how the story is trending rather than individual reports...but the direction this is heading in is not good.
I am puzzled that the speculated punishments are all really, really bad but there is an insistence out of the club that the 'crime' is technical or minor in character. This just doesn't add up. I hope that the club's transgressions are all going to be laid out in black and white when this is all over. Someone somewhere has to bear responsibility for something more than 'misinterpretation'. Chapman seems to be saying it ain't Trigg.
The supporters are a notable omission from that list.
I know, I know...media speculation has covered almost every possible outcome at some stage or other. I find I'm now looking at how the story is trending rather than individual reports...but the direction this is heading in is not good.
I am puzzled that the speculated punishments are all really, really bad but there is an insistence out of the club that the 'crime' is technical or minor in character. This just doesn't add up. I hope that the club's transgressions are all going to be laid out in black and white when this is all over. Someone somewhere has to bear responsibility for something more than 'misinterpretation'. Chapman seems to be saying it ain't Trigg.
The supporters are a notable omission from that list.
Does being right and sticking to it make me stubborn?
The Sunday Mail are reporting that we have got to the stage where we are negotiating penalties. We are still looking at draft penalties for the next 2 years at least. Chapman is also quoted as standing by Trigg, the players, sponnsors and management want him. No mention of the fans. FFS, we lose picks for 3 years and they still think he keeps his job.
Edit, thanks God for the link.
Malcolm Blight reckons it's a 'blip'.
How can we lose something we never had?
We have lost 20 and 54. Along with the chance to get something for Tippett.
Fair points. My point being that when a player nominates a single club ultimately the original club gets the rough end of the pineapple. There was plenty of squealing last year over what we got for Gunston, just as WC did when Judd left, just as Port did when Burgoyne left etc.
Its hard to know exactly what went on with Sydney. If you look at it, their first round draft pick at 20 was really the only currency they had to trade. Given that they had just won the premiership I highly doubt they had players wanting a trade. Its possible they decided to roll the dice and offer pick 20 and see if we had the balls to take nothing as the alternative. Its feasible.
Of course it is also quite feasible that Tippetts father produced the original agreement and told Sydney they would get Tippett for their second round draft pick if they were prepared to pay him a million bucks a year.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
same article says we are expecting 2 or 3 years of draft sanctions.
i will chuck my nut if thats the case.
Does being right and sticking to it make me stubborn?
The Sunday Mail are reporting that we have got to the stage where we are negotiating penalties. We are still looking at draft penalties for the next 2 years at least. Chapman is also quoted as standing by Trigg, the players, sponnsors and management want him. No mention of the fans. FFS, we lose picks for 3 years and they still think he keeps his job.
Edit, thanks God for the link.
EC
I agree Chapman mentioned that he, the players and sponsors wanted Trigggy to stay on however there was no mention of members or supporters, Im personally starting to sense that more people at the AFC knew about this side agreement
It was also interesting to read that the Sunday Mail believes that we will be cleared of any salary cap / 3rd payment breaches meaning our penalty will be contained to the send Tippett home Sid deal
With this in mind hopefully the penalty of a fine, loss of 2012 picks and the loss of opportunity to trade Tippett will fit the crime
We might end up with the greatest 'non-trade' of all time. Similar to the way the Carlton oreilly? Trade is regarded in the worst trade of all time threads. I can see it now. "worst non-trade of all time? That's easy, Adelaide crows could have gotten 8 for Tippett in 2011 but backed themselves in and the got nothing AND lost first 2 rounds in 2012 and........
Probably not the type of legacy this board wanted to leave.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
If that Sunday Mail article is anything to go buy, we still have a shit load of pan coming our way.
I can not see us having any first or second round picks in next years draft and at least one more meaning we will lose as many as 3 first round picks and 3 second round picks, plus anything we didn't gain from trading Tippett.
If that's minor, I'd hate to see what a major salary cap indiscretion would bring us.
I can not see us having any first or second round picks in next years draft and at least one more meaning we will lose as many as 3 first round picks and 3 second round picks, plus anything we didn't gain from trading Tippett.
If that's minor, I'd hate to see what a major salary cap indiscretion would bring us.
Fair points. My point being that when a player nominates a single club ultimately the original club gets the rough end of the pineapple. There was plenty of squealing last year over what we got for Gunston, just as WC did when Judd left, just as Port did when Burgoyne left etc.
Its hard to know exactly what went on with Sydney. If you look at it, their first round draft pick at 20 was really the only currency they had to trade. Given that they had just won the premiership I highly doubt they had players wanting a trade. Its possible they decided to roll the dice and offer pick 20 and see if we had the balls to take nothing as the alternative. Its feasible.
Of course it is also quite feasible that Tippetts father produced the original agreement and told Sydney they would get Tippett for their second round draft pick if they were prepared to pay him a million bucks a year.
What would be the reasoning behind blucher NOT telling the swans. He may have had to be very careful as to exactly what he said so as to protect Sydney. But surely, he managed to convey the pickle that we were in without directly implicating Sydney in the affair and opening them up for punishment.
- Status
